Trade & FA 2023-24: Stein-Ingram Trade Inevitable| LAL Want Lebron Back On Any Terms

[Dundalis]

You also get Gafford, who is just 24 years old. You basically set at C for the next five year paying 17M to Gafford/Lively. Kuzma is a good scorer and passer, which we lack in the front court with Wood gone. i´m not that attached to Kuzma. I want Gafford. He seems the perfect Hayward to Lively´s Tyson.

Also watching more highlights of Lively. He ain´t no WCS. The way I see it, I´d probably have taken Lively at #10 too, when Hendricks was gone. I think his ceiling is not as high as the Mavs might believe with the shooting hype. I think his ceiling is Jarrett Allen. Here is the catch. I think his floor is also Jarrett Allen. You just picked up Jarrett Allen for $4M/year.

Luka throwing lob passes to Mr. Fantastic with 7´7 wingspan instead of T-Rex arms Dwight. Show me the money. He´ll also get a lot of putbacks on offensive rebounds. He also runs the floor well. He moves his feet well. Excellent fluidity. Motor seems fine.

Don't agree. You don't get to be a good scorer by jacking up shots and putting up lots of points by virtue of volume. You need to be efficient. He's a good scorer like Westbrook was a good scorer. Not the scoring I want on this team. He's a good passer, but even there he feels like he's from the Westbrook style of passing. Feels empty. When you talk about empty stats guys, Kuzma is one of the guys that fits that exact profile.

So basically, the small 5s, the 4s and bigger 3s that could be available are:

Barnes, McDaniels, GWilliams, Reid, and Jerami Grant (who I missed on my previous post).

Among this group, I'd like Grant the most.
But is he a realistic option? I dunno'

Barnes and GWilliams are underwhelming choices.
McDaniels could come cheap, but unlike Jerami Grant who happens to be a poor rebounder too, McDaniels isn't a player you'd depend on to score or lock someone up.

In Kuzma:
* you get someone who rebounds at a decent rate
* can play both forwards spots (Mavs can chose who to start at the other -- Reggie or Maxi).
* none of the Mavs front court players from recent years had the ability to handle the ball and play make, Kuzma makes sure the Mavs have at least 2 guys on the floor who can dribble and dish.
* THJ was/still is a chucker and doesn't do anything but shoot 3s. And he's the 3rd option on this team on offense. I wouldn't advocate for Kuzma unless a trade happens that gets THJ out
* In theory the floor opens up for Kuzma's drives and his shooting would improve because of Luka and Kyrie's gravity.

Basically, Kuzma replaces THJ as the 3rd option,  an option who can dribble drive and not just shoot 3s. A player who can play either forward spots, and also act as a point forward ensuring at least 2 playmakers on the floor at the same time. He isn't good in defense, but not as bad as some of you guys are picturing him out to be. He isn't even THJ bad, who's the player I would like him to replace.

If I'm giving up a bunch of assets and an unprotected first, I'd rather keep THJ over Kuzma. Efficiency wise they are about the same, THJ has had multiple seasons above 55% TS unlike Kuzma. Plus Kuzma will be expecting to start, THJ you can play off the bench. Kuzma's playmaking is not near enough to make up for his volume low efficiency chucking, and bad defense. And yes he is a bad defender. Last season with the Wizards, the positive about him was that he showed effort defensively, unlike most of the rest of their roster. The problem was he was still bad despite that. As most Wizards fans will tell you. I don't want a player like Kuzma as the third offensive option, and I don't want a third starter on this team who can't play defense. Luka and Kyrie need to be surrounded with defensive specialists. if he reverts to the role player he was his last year in LA, which is how he should be utilized off the bench, it's more useful for this team, but his value for that role is not what we would be giving up. You should be able to get a better return than this giving up our FRP. A third ball handler in the starting lineup is less of an issue if this team is much improved defensively, because its not incumbent upon the offense alone to drive the team to wins.

On to Kyrie’s signing. I really think $40M is the right starting money. That gets him a $2M raise from this year’s money, puts him on par with Luka’s contract (I really don’t think this is much of a big deal at all) and gives us a path to getting at least the MLE to use (BAE would be a lot tougher without more money saving deals). 

Now, years and raises? There is the other thing. Like Stein, I’d hope for a 1+1, but also like Stein, that is not the way to Kyrie’s head/heart. Sounds like 4 years to match up with Luka expiring is the right way to go. I’ve pitched 5 years at lesser money, but I think that raise is also important.

If we’re going 4 years, I really hope we pitch and it’s acceptable for there to be no raises. Flat $40M gives us room in the years going forward, and it really matches what his level of play will be at (well…declining salary is probably more accurate, but we’re trying to be delicate with this whole thing).

So, in my mind, 4/$160M is probably the best we should hope for given the circumstances.

What do you mean the best we could hope for? Kyrie has NO leverage. I offer him 3 max. If Kyrie says no, what's he gonna do? He can whine and moan, but he doesn't have options. No one with max cap space is giving him a 4+ year max deal. I'd start with 1+1 as opener then offer him 2 years with a team option for a 3rd, and he can take it or leave it, and see if he can find a team with max cap space thats not a bottom feeder, but will actually want to spend max money on a 30 year old headcase PG for 4-5 years. I think he will have the same luck as Wood getting the money he wants.

I actually think this team could do fine without Kyrie. Depending on further acquisition's I think this team could be better than the one that went to the WCF. People acting like this team is done if Kyrie doesn't sign seem to be missing that we were on a contending trajectory without him. If he doesn't want to take a shorter term deal, if we could swing a S&T, I'd be completely good with that, even if the return aren't ideal fits. It would likely be assets we could more easily flip down the line. I love the fact that Cuban and Nico are making sure they state that despite wanting Kyrie, we will be fine either way. To me means they are not just gonna give Kyrie what he wants.